Should we be tolerant?

So there has been a lot of people in the news lately that have brought up the term "tolerant". From presidential candidates that look like a giant angry oohmpa-loompa to goverment officials.

I have been thinking, should people even be tolerant? Should we live our lives trying to deal with one another or should we live out our existence trying to surround ourselves with humans we agree with in every way?

I know this seems like a "duh!", but I find myself surrounded by people who claim to be from a loving and understanding organization but is very intolerant with certain live styles. My problem with this, is of you are going to be intolerant, go full blast. If you refuse to see a movie because one of the actors in the movie is gay or atheist, then judge your barber on the same merit. If your mailman is of a religion, political side or rival football team that you hate, then ask for a new mailman.

I just wanted to hear what people who fap night and day thought about this. Should we try and "understand" one another or should we group ourselves into "cliques" like we are back in high school?

Being tolerant and understanding needs to happen with everyone. There isn't a need to be tolerant of another person who isn't tolerant. You should understand them, but tolerance isn't required. Of course you should try and change the behavior, but we all know how grown humans love change. Being intolerant of an intolerant person or group isn't bigotry so feel free to do it in a lawful way.

Being tolerant can be good but it depends on what your being tolerant of.

As someone with a strange view on the world and also a religion frowned upon around the South; I have come to see and deal personally with the word tolerance and intolerance a lot. I personally think that tolerance is a form of passive agressive ignorance. Now I won't go into too many details as that would trail into another topic all together (which cool want to argue religion PM me would be to abide), but if you simply decide to tolerate or intolerate something that means you aren't learning from it and then making a proper decision to better themselves or at least be respectful to others. Honestly this world would be a lot better if tolerance was changed to acceptance.

I love that. "Passive agressive ignorance." I'll probably use those down the line.

The thing I've realized is people try and teach tolerance because they think that will make world peace. It won't. Humans will always find reasons to fight and hate, it's just our nature.

Tolerance is fixing the symptom not the problem. Just because a Christian tolerates being in the same room with a homosexual, doesn't mean in their head they aren't judging them and cursing them.

We put "tolerance" in the place of love and think that will make the world perfect.

So...I just wanna say that the world isn't so simple. Firstly, you don't always know everything about everyone. I don't know anything about my mailman. He could be super gay or jewish and I wouldn't know. In that case, ignorance is bliss and kind of just shows how ugly intolerance is. Would you want to stop having that mailman once you did find out he was gay or jewish? If so, why? What's the difference between when you found and before then? And what if you never found out?

Also, you can't just "request someone else" for all jobs. There are a limited supply of surgeons, neurologists, etc. and, firstly, if you're going to be operated on, I don't think you're going to have a say in who operates on you, and secondly, you might not have the luxury to be picky. What if your area only has a handful of neurologists and they are all democrats, which you happen to hate? Are you seriously going to drive a long distance just to see a non-democrat one? And even then, if you go to see another one, what are you going to do--ask them their political stance? Honestly it's all ridiculous. You have to make concessions to live in a society.

Ignorance is not a bliss. Rather it sources lot of problems.

Now let's consider two answer modes from individual toward group :
- egoism
- altruism
Most of morons would think those behaviors are exclusive from one to the other. But the reality is different and individuals tend to have a mixed behavior within the groups they "belong".

The same way, tolerance and intolerance are not exclusive from one to the other. It is what you call "compose with the situation". Also tolerance and intolerance are not just on individual scale, but as well groups can enforce them by laws, punishments, rewards, awards...

As for individual "like" and "dislike", it depends a lot of factors : education, economic situation, "personal" experiences and memories... Those liking and disliking feelings might or not crystallize into so called intolerance, or on the contrary be modulate as tolerance. It also happens for individuals to seek matching interests, then form "interests groups". But all things being equal, individuals may show multipolar interests, leading them either to "force" their interests in a group or to sway multiple interests groups. That's the moment where tolerance and intolerance arise both from each individual/personal reaction and from group reaction.

Most of time, intolerance may result from either dis/liking or interest conflict. Interest conflict may be debated. Dis/liking might be (re-)educated.


All to say it is neither fatality nor simple to consider such social aspects.

Tolerance is subjective to every individual.

How often do we hear of homophobia, of people being rejected or killed because they're foreigners or have a different faith (just look at the refugee crisis in Europe or the killings of blacks in the US)?

Fear, ignorance, egoism, ideology, faith - there's a crapton of reasons one person can be intolerant of another, and there's also plenty of reasons one can be tolerant, it all boils down to how that person views the world.

I think being tolerant is a virtue, something in short supply in this day and age, and we ought to remember that there's billions of us on this planet, so if someone is intolerant of someone else, that first someone would do well to expect a third party to be intolerant of them, because if they don't, they're fools.

You're just letting your pathos talk for you, pihip.

Let's take the following example : by any means you are burgled by an individual who does not give a shit of how his/her victime make a living and all, and above all this burgler just do it for the sake of showing off. Is it tolerable ? Other example : should we tolerate serial killers just because they are a "minority" ?

Tolerance and the reverse is not "just" about the pathos or "an eye for an eye", it is also about reasoning. Hence :



As for :


... this very way to view the world is wildly impacted by education.

It's not a matter of pathos, I would be wasting my time if I tried to convince people in this section of this or that - I just expressed my opinion.

You approve of it? Good, we think alike.

You don't? Suit yourself, we have our differences.

And I still believe that tolerance and intolerance are subjective, though I can agree that society, culture and education can influence how a person thinks or views things.

Does that change the fact that, in the end, it's the individual who chooses what to tolerate and what not to, based on their ideology, faith and whatever?

IMHO, it doesn't.

By the way, I wouldn't tolerate neither a burglar nor a serial killer, whatever their reasons may be.

But that's my opinion. I'm not imposing it on anyone, and anyone could have a different opinion than mine, that's their problem/choice.

As you express publicly your opinions, you automatically accept that people might read/hear it, then/hence voice their own views about yours. If not prepared to that, then don't voice it aloud.




You sure you "can" be intolerant even with laws or other means (+ situations such as no choice available, etc) to compel you to accept ?
You sure you "can" be tolerant even with laws or other means (+ situations such as no choice available, etc) to forbide you to accept ?

Well, that might be some "taste" but "opinions" do not always bear "value"/importance depending on contexts. For examples :

The same way, some brats don't like Fakku going legit ; but that does not mean the Fakku staffs should give them 'right' just because they "don't 'tolerate'(like) Fakku to make money".


That's why :




"Half of time", tolerance/intolerance is "less"/not a matter of "opinions". It's about living within couple/group/society/whatelse. Rather than opinions, most of time it requires :
- patience
- discernment
- reasoning about interest/damage
- communication
etc.

I'm perfectly aware of that, and I have no problems with you or others agreeing/disagreeing with it. I thought I was pretty clear in my previous post when I wrote that you're free to approve of it or not.



I 'could' do many things, as you and everyone else. And I am sure I can tolerate something or not based on my own views and opinions. Because in the end I can only express an opinion (that I 'tolerate' or 'don't'), not change how people think or how the law works and so on.

Let's make an example: I barely tolerate dogs. Does that mean I can kill every mutt I pass by? No, becuase that goes against the law and would make me a criminal. Hence I carry on, but my intolerance stays.



And that's a given. Just as with the example above, if I don't like something but I can do nothing about it, I go on with my life anyway, and I sure as hell won't lose sleep over it not going the way I want.

Ahh being tolerant... lol, the rallying cry of the progressives! I used to be all for it. I was all about tolerance because it was about living with people of different races and ethnicities, it was about respecting each other's religion and world views - even if we didn't like or agree with them. But I feel that's been lost, and tolerance has turned into a political rallying cry, rather than a true civil respect for each other. I still practice and would promote the later, but on a larger social level....

Feminism, progressives, religious folks - there is a tremendous and very load majority who are against what I innocently enjoy in life. Namely the content on a site like this. In my experience, they're all about love and respect and honoring other people's religion, art, culture, etc., until you mention sex. Then it's over - you're evil, either in a cosmic sense, or because "literary criticism" e.g. feminism says your pictures are responsible for the constant suffering of all women everywhere. Tolerance and respect is preached but it's applied in a hypocritical manner, which isn't really tolerance anymore.

Perhaps it's impossible, even before we get to the ridiculous extremes like "tolerate the murderer." Tolerance up to the Harm Principle would be my stance. Real harm, not imaginary, not preferences, nor wild accusations like porn destroys people and causes rape or some such nonsense. Regardless of what university stamps it or how many other feminists you cite... throughout history people have made logically sound and comprehensive ideologies that are nevertheless not true. The notion that the world is flat wasn't idiocy when it was believed.

Even with our modern tools and knowledge we're still so ignorant and incapable of understanding the complicated world we live in. Shit look at diet recommendations of eggs over the last decade or two!! It would take a hell of an amazing set of psychological studies to actually convince me of a cultural violation of the harm principle.

Why I bring that up is that the people that trumpet "Tolerance" as part of their social and political activity today are the same people, in my experience, who are not just passively intolerant of my personal tastes and preferences (that I could respect and deal with!), but actively campaign against them. Their tolerance ends at "adult content" and sexy ladies in games. These things are not accepted as a difference of opinion by the groups supposedly promoting tolerance. They've experienced some backlash when their aggressive campaigns for "respect" and "tolerance" becomes so clearly intolerant and downright racist that they have to back off.

What I'm saying is I'm scared of intolerance disguised as tolerance, which I see in a tremendous amount of modern US political and social activism. And I'm not just for hentai, but for freedom of religion, speech, and culture in general.

Not really into politics so I'm staying away from that subject, just giving my rationale on the whole tolerant bit. Politics is a game so when they throw up the word tolerant, they mean don't be Donald Trump lol. Pretty much everyone has a love hate sort of thing going on in politics so you need to put up a front of tolerance to appear civil even though you just want to say fuck you to those you disagree with.

In the real everyday world, I prefer the word considerate versus being tolerant. I like to be kind in relation of other regardless of our differences and am tolerant when I have to be of things I don't like, but I would never go as far to say that you must always be tolerant. If you were always tolerant of everything then there is no balance. You must have opposition and defiance to learn tolerance. Be outspoken when you feel you can and then keep reserved when you find being open doesn't work, then just run when shit hits the fan lol.

Depends on the subject and circumstances. If its a behavior or trait that impacts you or other people negatively, then of course it shouldn't be tolerated. If its something that is positive or neutral, then it should be tolerated. If this wasn't the case, blacks would still be at the back of the bus, women wouldn't be allowed to vote and homosexuals wouldn't be able to legally marry.

Tolerant of what? Rapist are just mis-understood. You should tolerate their behavior?

Its just a bullshit word people use to justify their perspective. In practice you're either an empathetic person, or your not. most people are going to live based off how they were raised with a few more social & modern adaptations then their parents. The law changed on homosexual marriage, the people who were bigots still will be. Some will follow the law begrudgingly, and others will try break it. Some of their children may grow up to be the same, or adapt away with the attitudes of their peers. Let others argue over social justice, and point fingers at social conservatives for sake of popularity and sensationalism. just vote according to your conscience/beliefs. We have more important wafu's to obsess over.

Tolerance != Acceptance. At least in regards to free speech and expression.




And when it comes to criminal activities there should at least be an attempt to understand and help those who've fallen down low. If not to just help out a fellow human being, then to understand where and why this behavior comes about and minimize it's prevalence. (in a sane non-violent way that's probably beneficial towards everyone)

I use to think tolerance is necessary but now I wonder if it hinders us more than helps. We are a wondrous yet barbaric species, but considering where our world is going right now it almost does not matter. The sides of Liberty and Totality are beginning to gather and preparing for the next great war. And from my perspective it is because of tolerance or more accurately allowance of certain behaviors: entitlement, welfare, Islam(except the Kurds and some populations), poor leadership, poor self control and moral decadence world-wide that will make Liberty disappear.

enjoy the time with the people you like, get through the time with the people you have to stand, and avoid those you hate least you have to

Tolerant in the dictionary and "tolerant" in the PC world are two different things. That is the first thing that needs to be said.